Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Well yea, of course Earth's water is older than the Sun. The Earth itself is vastly more ancient than the Sun, so of course the water is going to be older. The water that the Earth has was synthesized on the Earth itself during earlier stages of its evolution from a much hotter, bigger star. Water oceans are a by-product of a star's evolution, they don't come from some place "out there".

No star is that young and around 2550 Kelvin. Stars that young are around 10,000 Kelvin on their surfaces if not hotter. Remember, in stellar metamorphosis the hotter the star, the younger, the colder more solid the star, the older.

Its companion star is really, really old. Establishment science calls it a "planet" but my readers know better. It is a very ancient star that is in its gaseous stages of evolution. Notice on their page how they do not have an "age" of the star established: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2M1207b This is because they will automatically assume that these two objects are the same age based on the proto-planetary/nebular hypothesis theory (which has been falsified), and the central star is based on Big Bang Creationism to determine its age.

Monday, September 29, 2014

"Things were up for grab before when we thought there were singularities but did not know what they are or what happens near them. That led to a whole lot of speculation about singularities pinching off spacetime and making holes in the universe, and swallowing all the information about our universe... Now Harald and I have shown that since there are no singularities then we are back in the land of certainty as far as stars in our universe are concerned. We can study them with physics we trust and can follow their evolution through all the stages, with no mystery of incomprehensible exotic objects such as singularities involved."
Statements like this give me hope that establishment scientists aren't all idiots. Good job Laura. The underground scientific community already knows black holes are bullshit, thanks for helping us out.

Now what you need to do Laura is tell your friends that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation as a "planet" is an evolved/evolving star.

In the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis life has its origins where it currently resides, on the star which has evolved to the point of being able to produce and host it. In the Miller-Urey Experiment a vast multitude of chemical compounds including many different types of amino acids were produced as a result. No interstellar nonsense is required.

Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Earth's water is older than the Sun. This is because Earth is an ancient evolved star that is vastly older than the Sun. It had synthesized its water earlier in its evolution as a red dwarf, brown dwarf star. The synthesized water then condenses and rains onto the interior cooling it further forming the "planet".

Thursday, September 25, 2014

In about March 2003 I formally commenced part-time candidature for the PhD in the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia, under the supervision of Professor John K. Webb. The support supervisor was Professor Michael Ashley. I was initially engaged in the development of a computer simulation program in relation to Extra-Solar Planets.

About a year later I began work on General Relativity as a sideline. After a few months I came up with a result that proved black holes inconsistent with General Relativity. I presented this to Professor Webb. He was initially enthusiastic, and even arranged for me to deliver a lecture to his undergraduate General Relativity class. Before my informing him, Webb had never heard of Schwarzschild's original solution.

Later Webb arranged for me to have some contact with his colleague, Professor Paul Davies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He and Davies, both being British, knew each other from their Cambridge days. Davies initially replied in a derogatory tone, claiming that Schwarzschild's original metric, which he had never before seen, was not Ricci flat, and did not satisfy Einstein's field equations. I proved these claims false, at the request of Webb. That drew more attention from Davies. Unfortunately, Davies turned out to be rather inept (see some of his correspondence here), so he sent my analysis to Professor Peter Szekeres of the University of Adelaide, son of George Szekeres of the Kruskal-Szekeres extension. He proved just as inept. He too had never before heard of Schwarzschild's original solution, and claimed that it was equivalent to Hilbert's metric (the one always and erroneously called "Schwarzschild's" solution by the writers of textbooks and papers). I provided a demonstration that this claim is false. Evidently Szekeres either did not understand this or did not want to hear of it. He dismissed my analysis unscientifically. Davies, in subservience to Szekeres, then failed to respond any further. Webb began to falter on the strength of the incompetent advice.
Webb also insisted that I confer with Professor Michael Kruchiev at UNSW. I reluctantly complied. When I walked into Kruchiev's office he immediately told me that he was not interested in discussion of my work, but if I needed his help, he said, "I'm all yours". He evidently thought himself a big-shot in science. There was some brief exposition by Kruchiev of the Kruskal-Szekeres extension. I remarked that this gives a non-static solution to a static problem (isn't that a contradiction?). He looked at me stupefied. I terminated the meeting after about 10 minutes, as it was obviously pointless.

Webb then attempted to engage Professor Victor Flambaum at UNSW. Flambaum refused to meet with me or to read my papers, claiming, according to Webb, that I had no chance of being right. At that time there was a Russian visitor at UNSW (Flambaum and Kruchiev are also Russians). Webb discussed the matter with the visitor. The visitor claimed that Schwarzschild's original solution was wrong. He also told Webb that he had just completed writing a book on General Relativity in which he derived the black hole solution following the work of Weyl. I pointed out to Webb that this claim was nonsense as it is clearly argued by Weyl in his book, 'Space, Time, Matter' that there is no 'interior' solution as claimed by the proponents of the black hole. I referred Webb to the relevant pages in Weyl's book.

I had a meeting with Webb some time later, in his office, for discussion of the theory. He understood nothing, and told me so; but he lent his support to my continued research.
In mid to late 2004, with the support of Webb, I formally changed my PhD thesis to theoretical research in General Relativity.

In late 2004 and early 2005 Webb was in Cambridge on Sabbatical. He told me that he would discuss my work with his colleague John Barrow, and with a bloke named Joao Magueijo. I received nothing from Webb in relation to these two colleagues of his. In fact, Webb was silent, but eventually replied to my email, clearly indicating that he was no longer in support of my work. He even became abusive, to which I responded appropriately, not being one to allow anyone to intimidate me. I had initially thought Webb a decent chap, but it turned out that he is in fact a rather disingenuous fellow.

I was then published in the journal Progress in Physics, by invitation of the Editors. Webb would not recognise the publications claiming in so many words that Progress in Physics was not to be taken seriously.

I wrote up my thesis and made representation to Professor Mike Gal for early submission. Webb informed me that he was not prepared to "sign off" on my thesis and that I must change my thesis topic if he was to continue as my supervisor. I rejected his ultimatum, and informed Gal. Gal told me that I did not need Webb's consent to submit, but since my submission was early, I would have to go through a bureaucratic process to get my thesis submitted, and that the School of Physics would support my submission. Gal informed the Head of School, Professor Warwick Couch, of the situation and arranged a meeting in Couch's office. I was to meet Couch in the company of Gal. Later Gal claimed that he was mistaken in his advice on how early submission was to be effected.

The meeting took place. Gal and Couch insisted that I send a paper to a journal of their choosing, namely, Physical Review, and paid no regard to my publications in Progress in Physics. I objected on the grounds that it is inappropriate to publish the same paper in another journal. They also insisted that I allow Professor Chris Hamer of UNSW to read my papers so that Hamer could send them a report and his recommendations. I met with Hamer a couple of days later and gave him several of my published papers. During our meeting I asked Hamer to identify the quantity r in Hilbert's metric. He told me that it's "the radius." He is incorrect.

About a week or so later I received an email from Hamer, along with a copy of his report and recommendation, which he had sent to Couch and Gal. He claimed that I was but an "apprentice" in these matters. He had evidently read only one of my papers and did not understand anything. His report contained a gross misrepresentation of my work. He had actually altered my work and thereby claimed that I was in error and that I should not be permitted to submit and that if I wanted a PhD from UNSW I must change my topic as Webb had dictated. Go here for Hamer's covering letter, and go here for Hamer's incompetent report.

I wrote in protest to Gal and Couch of Hamer's misrepresentation and incompetence. Couch replied that I was rude in my remarks about Professor Hamer, and totally disregarded Hamer's alteration of my work and misrepresentation thereof. My reply to Hamer is here. Couch and Gal would not support my PhD submission, contrary to Gal's previous advice.

I wrote to the University Academic Committee in protest. Go here for my letter. The Academic Committee replied in full support of its professors in the School of Physics, and completely ignored Hamer's alteration of my work and his misrepresentation of my work. Go here for the Committee's letter in reply. My next letter to the Academic Committee is here. The whitewash reply is here, wherein the Presiding Member Faculty of Science, Dr. David Cohen, defends the misconduct of Gal and the other relevant professors in the School of Physics, and conveniently omits addressing most of the issues upon which I specifically called for his comment. I was not invited to meet with the Academic Committe, but Gal conferred with them.

I was then formally without a supervisor (although actually without a supervisor since early 2005 when Webb withdrew his support), and therefore effectively expelled de facto from PhD candidature since the University rules do not allow candidature without a supervisor, as the Academic Committee and the professors well knew. No one in the School of Physics would replace Webb as supervisor, and the University officials all knew this. By this tactic the University eliminated me from the PhD programme, whilst maintaining a façade of integrity and due process, despite the fact I was not invited to the meeting of the Academic Committee.
I received a letter dated 16 December 2005 from UNSW threatening me with legal action if I did not pay fees for 2005. Go here for the letter. I wrote back denying liability for the fees, since I had effectively been expelled and was without any supervisor for that year. Go here for my reply. The Deputy Vice Chancellor wrote back waiving the fees, but made no comment as to the misconduct of Hamer and the other professors. Go here for his letter.

It was brought to my attention by the folks at ArchiveFreedom that they received a letter of disapproval of the report herein (to which their website contains a link) on the dishonourable acts and omissions perpetrated by the physics professors and Academic Committee of the University of New South Wales, from the founder of its School of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora. The letter was forwarded to me for response. Mr. Hora claims that his University and his professors did no wrong, and told me that my report is insulting to UNSW, its professors, and himself. He does not disapprove of the serious misconduct of his professors one bit. You can read his arrant nonsense here. Professors at UNSW seem to think that they can commit fraud with impunity. I doubt that the courts would agree with them.

During the course of these events I attempted to engage in discussion some so-called 'experts' in General relativity. Amongst them were included all the members of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation. Of the latter I managed to engage M.H.A. MacCallum in some discussion. MacCallum was from the outset rude and condescending, and quite inept. He did not even know how to deal with a constant of integration, as his correspondence with me attests. Go here for his first letter (with some later ones appended). I replied here. He next provided some incorrect argument as to why I was wrong and the usual suspects right. Go here for this laughable document. I replied here. With MacCallum, the gloves came off.
J. Berkenstein (member of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation) wrote to me but offered no science, and simply called me an "antiquarian" and generally insulted me. He then disappeared.

I had some very brief correspondence with J. Pullin (member of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation) one J. Sennovilla in Spain. Neither provided any scientific discourse.
I also wrote to the famous Mr. Roy Kerr, of the Kerr solution, and pointed out errors in the standard interpretation of his metric, and provided him with copies of my relevant papers. As I did not hear from him I sent a second email complaining to him that it was discourteous of him not to reply. He finally replied on the 2nd March 2006, and it was pathetic. First, he told me that my complaint of his discourtesy was "insulting crap". Then he told me that my work was "rubbish" and referred me to the usual change of co-ordinates (e.g. Kruskal-Szekeres). He offered no mathematical refutation or sound scientific arguments, although I requested him to provide this. I pointed out that he was circular in trying to refute me by referring me to the Kruskal-Szekeres type co-ordinates since I had proved the Kruskal-Szekeres co-ordinates invalid. Evidently that was too sophisticated for his poor brain. Kerr simply took his bat and ball home when it become apparent to him that he couldn't win with mindless doubletalk, evidently being of the view that facts which upset his applecart can be disposed of by ignoring them. Very convenient I'm sure, but certainly not science. You can read the Kerr correspondence here.

My papers were posted to the electronic archive of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, but members of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitational and/or their associates, servants or agents, arranged for all my papers to be removed from the ICTP, without my knowledge. I was subsequently barred from posting papers to the ICTP website. It became clear that the ICTP is also actively engaged in the suppression and falsification of science. You can read about that here. My papers are cited on the website of the American Mathematical Society.

A Simple Non-Mathematical Proof
It is very easily proven that the black hole and the big bang contradict one another and so they are mutually exclusive. All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations pertain to universes that are spatially infinite, are eternal, contain only one mass, are not expanding, and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But the alleged big bang universes are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), are of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial), are expanding, and are not asymptotically anything (Crothers 2013). Thus black hole universes and big bang universes contradict one another. They are mutually exclusive and so they cannot co-exist. It is therefore not possible for a black hole to be present in a big bang universe or even in another black hole universe, and likewise it is not possible for a big bang universe to be present in a black hole universe or in another big bang universe. Nonetheless the astrophysical magicians superpose black hole and big bang universes notwithstanding that they are incompatible by their very definitions, and that the Principle of Superposition does not hold in General Relativity. Much of modern physics is simply manufactured in this way and so it bears no relation to the actual Universe

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

This is what an embryonic galaxy looks like. It is not "dead star" as per establishment dogma. Establishment scientists are fools. They wouldn't know what an evolved star looks like even if they were standing on one.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Finding clouds of water floating in the atmosphere of an alien world is a significant find. Now, astronomers have reported preliminary findings that water clouds have been detected in the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, a mere 7.3 light-years from Earth.But don’t dream of an alien planet with white, fluffy clouds rolling over a habitable terrain, brown dwarfs are cool failed stars with thick churning atmospheres, the antithesis of a life-giving habitat (as we know it).

A couple problems and ideas:

1. Brown dwarfs synthesize hydrogen gas with oxygen gas making water, so this finding is no surprise if the general theory of stellar metamorphosis is taken into account

2. It will cool and shrink as the other material deposits as solid/liquid structure undergoing basic thermodynamic phase transitions called deposition and condensation. Which means it will become an "alien planet with white, fluffy clouds rolling over a habitable terrain" in its future when it is much more evolved.

3. This is not a "failed star", it is an intermediately aged star. The "failed" nonsense is a direct result of scientists thinking stars are fusion reactors, they are not, they are giant electrochemical/thermochemical events which are taking elements and combining them into molecules.

4. It is not the anti-thesis of a life giving habitat, it is the thesis of a life producing habitat in the earliest stages of life formation when the first molecules are synthesized like water, methane, amino acids, etc. In the general theory of stellar metamorphosis life formation is a direct result of the evolution of a star, and this brown dwarf is intermediate stages.

What has caused their cluelessness is the simple fact that they forgot half of their understanding. The latter half of star evolution was completely ignored!

4. They ignore the role of thermochemistry and electrochemistry in stars.

5. They base their ideas on mythological interpretations

6. Stresses electrical/catastrophic events could have formed what we observe

Stellar Metamorphosis

1. Has stars as being new planets and planets as ancient/older/evolving stars.

2. Has an evolutionary understanding of stars (since all "planets" are ancient stars that is a given).

3. Has a understanding of planet formation (since all "stars" evolve into what are called planets which is also a given.)

4. Does not ignore the role of thermochemistry and electrochemistry (the source of heat from all evolving stars is not thermonuclear)

5. Does not base itself on mythological interpretations, as a matter of fact completely ignores mythological interpretations.

(I cannot stress this enough, events in stellar metamorphosis take thousands of eons, we can call this deep time, or time that happens beyond our daily perception of reality.)

6. Stresses all naturally occurring phenomenon are important.

(Focusing on one phenomenon to explain all is having a hammer and looking at everything as if it were a nail. In natural philosophy we have to consider all possibilities, as nature is very complex and stepped in more ways than one.)

The consensus understanding of stellar evolution is currently based on mathematical theory and models. This is problematic because entities can be invented to explain certain phenomenon and be proven to exist based on faulty assumptions, thus meaning entities can be invented that do not have physical reality such as black hole singularities.[6][7][8] According to consensus rooted in mathematical theory when a star dies it can collapse into a black hole singularity, but according to stellar metamorphosis stars undergo physical transformations and never become singularities. Physical theories based on direct observations do not require the addition of ad hoc hypothesis, therefore are much different than mathematical theories that can use false assumptions to prove the physical presence of non existent entities.

The 6, 7 and 8 numbered references are to Mr. Crother's papers. Black holes do not exist. A star does not collapse into a black hole at the end of its life, it collapses into a planet. Therefore we can realize that the star is the new planet and the planet is the collapsed star. This means they are actually one in the same, Earth is an ancient star, and the Sun is a baby Earth.

Monday, September 22, 2014

I used to think that those awards meant something, but now I understand they are completely irrelevant to science and the progress of human understanding of nature.

There is no way to make them relevant either, its purely political now. Nobel Prizes are completely centered on egos and power plays in academia. It has no bearing on anything in reality. Case in point, I have made the discovery that Earth is an ancient star older than the Sun, in as much as stellar evolution is the process of planet formation. This is easily the most important realization in the history of astronomy/astrophysics, geophysics and even the life sciences...

You don't have to take my word for it reader. Make a discovery yourself and try to get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal. You'll see that they are not interested in new understanding of nature. They have given up on understanding nature, all they have now is more precise measurements to make, in absentia genuine understanding of what they are actually measuring. They have already annointed themselves the Masters of the Universe and they will prove it by giving their buddies millions of dollars. (yes a Nobel Prize is $1.2 million).

Look at the linked webpage on the exoplanet.eu site, guess what they forgot to list...

The metallicity was neglected on their data sheet, therefore the age of the star was also neglected.

In stellar metamorphosis stars that are plasmatic are very young, the old star in this data sheet is unfortunately called "the planet", or WASP 23b.

Ooooops. Old stars are called "planets" to Big Bang Creationists. How embarrassing!

What I am wondering is this:

Should I be a gentleman about pointing out their incredible mistake? Or should I just be nice? How have they treated me should be the question. I'll tell ya. They have ignored me, called me names and put me down. Guess what? No more Mister Nice Guy. I'm going to destroy those fools. All of them. They have been holding humanities' head under water with their Big Bang Creationism and Spacetime pseudoscience for long enough.

All my readers are aware of the greatest mistake, shall I say Charlie Foxtrot, of all of astrophysics/astronomy and geology.

It was in how a human being views a "star". This mistake is all over the internet, all over wikipedia pages, all over journal articles, taught in every university and school system on the Earth, and is essentially "common knowledge" among all educated/un-educated folk.

Stars are not planets.

This is definitely 100% wrong.

I just thought I would point out another way in which this assumption could have been corrected, if someone just had enough tenacity or insight to do so. There are a few people now who realize what I do, that a "star" is a new planet and a "planet" is an ancient star...

In astronomy, stellar classification is the classification of stars based on their spectral characteristics.
Do you see where they made the mistake reader? What happens when a star cools to the point of not having a spectrum? Ahhh! Its obvious you may say! The "star" cools and becomes the "planet", because we all know a "planet" doesn't have a spectrum! Yet, they are the only objects besides stars that are incredibly massive! That is unless astronomers have found a star which does not emit a spectrum!

This is the point reader! If an astronomer can find a star which does not have a spectrum this all this work I've been doing over 3 years is for naught. Chances are they have a star that does not have a spectrum right below their feet, it is our job to let them know. The stars that don't have spectrums anymore are "planets".

Someone needs to tell quasars to act in accordance with what astronomers believe, that they are at their redshift distances and stop doing things like this, or else they will be fired from their positions at universities... wait, they don't have positions at universities...

In this theory a star starts out with cold material, and powerful electromagnetic interactions cause it to heat up significantly. To dissipate the enormous heat the star will expand greatly a like soap bubble, and then as it dissipates the heat will then start collapsing again as the material cools. The star maintains its spherical shape during the cooling process, this is why all "planets" are spherical. If they formed from a "disk" according to the nebular hypothesis then they should be flat things, unfortunately for accepted theory this is not observed.

As the star cools it differentiates and shrinks, all the while losing mass and having its spectrum diminish considerably, until eventually the star no longer has a spectrum and the material undergoes thermodynamic phase transitions, plasma to gas, gas to liquids/solids. This is where scientists mess up, they assume that stars which are dying and are not active enough to produce noticeable spectrums are completely different objects. They call them "planets".

In other words, the concepts "planet" and "star" were never mutually exclusive. It is only in the minds of educated folk that this is true. Unfortunately for them its simply not true. The star is the young planet and the planet is the ancient star. They are the same objects, only in different stages of evolution.

I have learned wording and rewording the theory is helping people tremendously. I have considered multiple approaches to spreading this discovery.

Yea, I think I'm just going to focus on my job. I mean, it wasn't like I spent years of schooling to make a discovery, it just happened to me. It wasn't planned. I guess a good comparison was I was just walking in the woods and I had stubbed my toe on a rock. I wondered what a strange rock to be in the middle of the woods, so I decided to try and pull it up. It was too big to pull up so I started to dig around it... turns out the digging turned into more digging... eventually I found out that it was the top of some ancient building, and that ancient building was completely covered by many hundreds of meters of dirt... and then come to find out that building was just one of an entirely buried ancient civilization that stretched into the woods for many tens of miles. It turned out to be a vast network much more vast than I could ever imagine, and digging it up on my own, well, it is just too much. I stumbled upon a very ancient deep understanding of nature, and I was naive to expect educated individuals to immediately understand it. I have painfully learned it is actually the educated people who are the most closed minded, bigoted, hateful individuals. Though all of this I have unwittingly been mimicking their attitude towards out of the box ideas, which has been detrimental to the development of the understanding. People reading this thread in the future will probably think I'm some arrogant fool, I don't think myself to me. I just think I'm learning very fast how new ideas travel and it is an emotional roller coaster. What a painful, miserable experience all of this has been.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Pulse of a dead star? Nope. What they are looking at is an embryonic galaxy. A galactic seed which will eventually eject from the Milky Way many years into the future and grow into a galaxy itself.

Besides, my readers already know what a dead star looks like. We have them in our neighborhood and they sure as hell don't emit powerful gamma rays. They are dead stars, meaning they are dead, a.k.a. NOT ACTIVE. Here is Mercury. Does anybody see huge gamma rays coming out of it? I sure don't. You know why? Its dead! Its the eventual fate of all stars when they die. They are destined to cool and shrink into giant rocks with iron/nickel cores. There's the General Unified Theory people have been looking for. Unfortunately it does not include general relativity or quantum mechanics. Oh well! Should it be a surprise that progress happens in unpredictable ways?

a. the importance of physical states of matter (solids/liquids/gases/plasmas), (electron)

b. chemical reactions and the bonds that are formed, (electron)

c. ionization energies of the material as it undergoes electromagnetic forcing (electron)

Is simply non-existent because to establishment, the driving understanding is strictly "proton/neutron", versus the "electron".

Did I word that good enough?

The reason why I'm drawing up this theory is because A, B, and C are ignored because establishment has placed interactions at the stellar level as purely "proton/neutron" dependent. This is incorrect. Interactions at the stellar level, include A, B and C type interactions, the star cools and dies becoming the "planet". Interactions at the galactic level include the "proton/neutron" (radio galaxies/pulsars/quasars). Thus their theories are misplaced.

Misplacing theories like that naturally will lead to the belief of "electron degenerate matter" as being matter at the galactic level, yet EDM is at the stellar level. Galactic level interactions could possibly actually contain "proton/neutron" degenerate matter, which means that there is matter that does not contain "proton/neutron/electron" yet. But that's something else. The fact that I could even publish an article like that on vixra makes me incredibly happy (without it being censored obviously by peer-reviewers).

I have also noticed a simple mistake in which I note decomposition reactions as being (synthesis) reactions, in which it is not. A decomposition reaction is analysis, and a combination reaction is synthesis.

Decomposition reaction:

Combination (synthesis) reaction:

The vast majority of chemical reactions in star evolution are synthesis reactions which are exothermic (heat releasing).

A very good example is one I found:

While three bonds must be broken (two H―H and one O-O double bond), a total of four bonds are made (four O―H bonds). Since all the bonds are similar in strength, making more bonds than are broken means the release of energy. In mathematical terms

ΔH° = 2DH―H + DO=O + 4DO―H

= 2 × 436 kJ mol–1 + 1 × 498 kJ mol–1 – 4 × 467 kJ mol–1

= – 498 kJ mol–1

In summary, there are two factors which determine whether a gaseous reaction will be exothermic or not:

(1) the relative strengths of the bonds as measured by the bond enthalpies, and

(2) the relative number of bonds broken and formed. An exothermic reaction corresponds to the formation of more bonds, stronger bonds, or both.

In addition to exothermic/endothermic reactions, and combination/decomposition reactions we have spontaneous/non-spontaneous reactions in star evolution. (For those readers who already understand where this theory is headed, the "fusion" model of the Sun is false dogma and can be ignored safely.)

1. Non-spontaneous means you need to produce an extra variable as in an electrical current in electrolysis.

2. spontaneous means that nothing additional needs to be done, as in lithium dropped in water producing lithium hydroxide in an aqueous solution and hydrogen gas.

In stellar evolution the majority of the chemical combination reactions are stepped reactions, with the majority of them being spontaneous. By stepped I mean oxygen first has to combine with oxygen and hydrogen with hydrogen, then O2 gas combines with H2 gas. After the thermochemistry is completely then the material can deposit as solid structure and crystallize, or as liquid structure that gets buried by more solid structure preventing evaporation as in natural gas.

In stellar metamorphosis young stars like the Sun are hollow. They are too young to have formed a core. Only stars that have aged considerably have had enough time for form an interior structure. Earth is a star that has formed an interior, as it is much more ancient than the Sun.

You are wrong. Clearly you did not pay attention to what is actually written in my paper. All alleged black hole universes are infinite because they are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved spacetimes by their very definition. There is no bound on asymptotic because otherwise it would not be asymptotic.Without the asymptotic condition the mathematical expressions purporting black holes do not obtain. The black hole universe is thus not contained within its 'event horizon' as you evidently imagine. Moreover, all alleged big bang universes in which black holes are supposed to reside are not asymptotically anything and therefore do not satisfy the asymptotic condition of the black hole spacetime. Consequently a black hole universe and a big bang universe can't coexist, by their very definitions. It is not I who has a fundamental misconception. If you think asymptotically flat and asymptotically curved spacestimes do not extend indefinitely, provide your means by which they stop somewhere, and specify precisely where they stop. So far you have only adduced the same old demonstrable nonsense.

And what mathematics is it you allege I don't understand? You have not substantiated your allegation. There are some 60 pages of mathematical appendices in the paper. It seems you did not notice them. Please explain to us all where my mathematics is incorrect.

Chemical exothermic reactions produce the vast majority of the heat of evolving stars. This is why Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and even Uranus radiate as much as if not more energy they receive from the Sun, and will continue to do so as they form the "Earths" in their interiors. We have ample evidence of these chemical combination reactions having taken place all over the Earth:

ALL of these compounds (except for the native elements) were formed in fact via exothermic reactions, as heat would be released from bond formation. You don't get chemical bonding for free, the gravitational potential of the collapsing star provides the energy for these vast chemical combination reactions to occur inside of the star. The compounds listed constitute the 7 major mineral groups.

Saturn’s excess heat is generated by the precipitation of helium into its metallic hydrogen core.

With statements like this it becomes obvious they have ignored ALL chemistry, and the fact that if they are to have a cohesive "planet formation" model, they need to include how the chemicals on the Earth formed. Just ignoring them doesn't make them go away. (I have also noticed the typo in the graph, carbon is C, Gold is Au, Silver is Ag)

A cloud collapses to form a star and disk. Planets form from this disk. According to our current understanding, a star and its planets form out of a collapsing cloud of dust and gas within a larger cloud called a nebula.

Almost.

In stellar metamorphosis here is what it actually should look like:

A cloud is ionized forming a young star. This young star cools and collapses into what is called a planet. According to our current understanding, a star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient star, thus they are the same objects.

As we can see the problem was that they needed a unifying concept to combine both stars and planets. Little do they know the star is the new planet and the planet is the ancient star. The disk was never needed.

Perhaps even Mr. C can solve the equations as to what happens when a large spherical body made of dust collapses under its own weight.

Well Mr. 't Hooft, I can actually answer that one. A large spherical body made of dust, more than likely luminescent dust like the Sun, will collapse into a solid body. Plasma recombines into gas, gas condenses and deposits as solid and superheated liquid structure (liquid hot magma)

It is basic thermodynamics Mr. 't Hooft. The "star" becomes a "planet". The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis covers this. Have you heard of it? It goes over the fact that establishment science has had it wrong now for centuries. Stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself, the star cools and becomes the planet as it dies and shrinks. It never becomes the fabled "black hole". That is unless you want people to believe the Earth is a black hole? I think its a black dwarf.

There are other establishment pseudoscientists, they are called string theorists. They are going to be exposed eventually too.

I do not endorse Mr. Evans (simply because I do not understand anything concerning his UFT papers) but I do like the fact that he supports Mr. Crothers:

Come on Cornell! This is the best you can offer? Stars wobble? Of course they wobble this is how we find the evolved stars (exoplanets) which orbit others in many cases.

I guess yall have thrown in the towel when it comes to solving universal mysteries... keeping stars mutually exclusive of evolved stars (exoplanets/gas giants). They question what happens to gas giants as they evolve, well, they deposit their material in their cores and then have their outer atmospheres ripped away... revealing the new Earth inside of them...

Funny how they decided to write about wobbling, when their "models" should have attacked the rate of mass loss of a gas giant (evolved star) as it orbits a newer hotter star which is stripping it of its protective layers.

Of course to them, a gas giant could never be a small rocky world... little do they know the "gas giant" is an intermediately aged star. It seems they have been over educated. Its either that or their bosses would be upset so they decided to not step on any toes by writing a safe, utterly boring paper. *yawn*

Keep stifling innovation and creativity and keep your students safe Cornell, we all know its the buddy buddy system there and guess what? It doesn't matter. I will continue to make discoveries and share them for free, absent bureaucracy. So its either help your students step up their game and allow for unsafe papers, or have your ass handed to you on a silver platter by a nobody.

This is why I'm picking on Cornell, it is essentially the same reason why vixra.org was established.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

Where are all the theoretical physicists predicting the eventual evolution of all these exo-planets (evolved stars): http://exoplanet.eu/

Where is all the theory predicting the eventual evolution of Jupiter? Saturn? Neptune? Uranus? Earth?

IT DOES NOT EXIST!

Do not take my word for it, find on the internet any where that predicts the eventual evolution of Neptune... Go ahead! Surely an object more massive and grander than the Earth itself would have some sort of significance in the "theoretical physics" department...

Objects like this are ignored in the "theoretical physics" department. They would rather worry about things that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

Harvard Society of Fellows is a group of scholars selected at the beginning of their careers by Harvard University for extraordinary scholarly potential, upon whom distinctive academic and intellectual opportunities are bestowed in order to foster their individual growth and intellectual collaboration. Membership in the society is for life.

Where do I fit in? I don't. I'm not a scholar in their terms, a scholar has the implied prerequisite of agreeing with everybody to form the group or society of fellows. They have no interest in outsiders. It is a club, and you ain't in it! RIP George Carlin.

The people who wrote this paper I am greatly interested in, simply because all four of them considered big bang to be pseudoscience. It is very challenging to me now in realizing that not all people who do astronomy/astrophysics agree with each other. We are told via popular media that all astronomers are in agreement with ideas, but the truth is they are not. Though it is strange how they want us to believe that to be the case.

To begin, usually with astrophysical papers the authors make massive amounts of assumptions true. The trick is revealing to the reader where the assumptions are hiding. There are always assumptions inside of astrophysical papers, here I will point them out to the best of my ability.

1. Assuming the isotope and elemental abundances in the universe are actually observed.

(It shouldn't be a shocker to anybody that stars that do not shine from their own light, planets as they are called, are ancient and do not have the ability to show their isotope and elemental abundances when viewed from telescopes as are younger stars. Unfortunately, establishment physicists do not consider "planets" as ancient stars, so the elemental and isotope abundances cannot accurately be accounted for inside of evolved galaxies. Given that ancient stars are much more solid material and contain a much greater composition of heavier elements than do supposed sun-like stars, the abundances are genuinely still up in the air and have never been accurately measured. The abundances were also assumed based off the preposition that the majority of a star's composition could be inferred from its spectrum, this is also faulty because young plasmatic stars can hide the heavier elements inside of them, only the most singly ionized ones will appear in the spectrographs.)

That is the first major assumption to stellar nucleosynthesis, and as we can see is not solid ground what so ever towards the development of understand stellar interiors or their actual structure/elemental abundances and isotope abundances. In short, this paper will be forgotten under the weight of current observations and theory which is in development. I must consider these types of papers to point out where we went wrong.

2. Not being aware of galaxy ejection and quasar jets (radio and x-ray sources).

I have read the paper (it is quite lengthy) there is not one single mention of quasar jets. In stellar metamorphosis this is where actual fusion processes happen, not in stars. The permanence of stellar fusion cycles being in stars is a great disadvantage to modern science, because it is bolstered by social constructions in graduate school. This meaning the solar fusion model is a 100 year fad.

See the jets? That is where fusion is occurring. We shall call it Galactic Nucleosynthesis.

I think I have a lot of lessons to learn from Mr. Sheldrake. I consider him to be a very knowledgeable person concerning biology and to boot he is a heretic of materialism philosophy.
Some part of me also wants to reject materialism as a philosophy simply because it begs the question: What is stuff?
You can't say "stuff" or make up things, because then what are those things made up of? The reductionism is non-stop. There has to be a better philosophy than thinking reality is made of "stuff". I'm not too sure if a "morpho-genic field" is the correct idea, but it is worth looking at, regardless of all the ridicule Mr. Sheldrake has been receiving from the materialists.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

These are the stats from around the world over the past week. I wish I could speak more than just English and a little Spanish... I feel like a dumb American. Seriously, France? China? Poland? Austria? Wow.